WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Whoa whoa whoa....quit trying to use "facts" and stuff. Everybody knows Obama is spending like a drunken sailor because he is a Democrat. Republicans are the only ones we can trust to be fiscally responsible.

Interesting. Seriously.
But aren't we still saying that for the last five years we've been spending about 16-18% above 2008 budget?
And it's okay because...well Bush did it too...?
Edit: And somehow now Hoover had it right?

This kind of stuff is why it makes my blood boil to deal with anyone in the NOBAMA crowd.
If you prefer Romney or the GOP platform because those principles are better than what Obama wants to do, fine. I can respect that.
But if you think Obama is the worst president in history or has been a total disaster, you are a ####### brainwashed moron.
The last 4 years have been small adjustments (for the better, IMO) not a complete change of direction.

This kind of stuff is why it makes my blood boil to deal with anyone in the NOBAMA crowd.
If you prefer Romney or the GOP platform because those principles are better than what Obama wants to do, fine. I can respect that.
But if you think Obama is the worst president in history or has been a total disaster, you are a ####### brainwashed moron.
The last 4 years have been small adjustments (for the better, IMO) not a complete change of direction.

But they've been 4 years of small adjustments from what we've been continually beaten over the head with as The Worst President Evah.
So are we saying that Obama is as bad as Bush or that Bush wasn't so bad after all?

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams.I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas JeffersonReligious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.- James Madison

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." -Sarah Palin

------------------------------------
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

This kind of stuff is why it makes my blood boil to deal with anyone in the NOBAMA crowd.
If you prefer Romney or the GOP platform because those principles are better than what Obama wants to do, fine. I can respect that.
But if you think Obama is the worst president in history or has been a total disaster, you are a ####### brainwashed moron.
The last 4 years have been small adjustments (for the better, IMO) not a complete change of direction.

But they've been 4 years of small adjustments from what we've been continually beaten over the head with as The Worst President Evah.
So are we saying that Obama is as bad as Bush or that Bush wasn't so bad after all?

This kind of stuff is why it makes my blood boil to deal with anyone in the NOBAMA crowd.
If you prefer Romney or the GOP platform because those principles are better than what Obama wants to do, fine. I can respect that.
But if you think Obama is the worst president in history or has been a total disaster, you are a ####### brainwashed moron.
The last 4 years have been small adjustments (for the better, IMO) not a complete change of direction.

But they've been 4 years of small adjustments from what we've been continually beaten over the head with as The Worst President Evah.
So are we saying that Obama is as bad as Bush or that Bush wasn't so bad after all?

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...
1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.
2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.
I just thank god those years are over. I don't feel that way about Romney.

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...
1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.
2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

Okay. I can see #1.
But discounting that, if a smart guy does the remaining things in nearly the same way as the dumb guy, what does it matter that he's smart?

Copied: The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.
Didn't the Democrats contol both houses of Congress those 2 years? While that budget is not Obama's doing, it certainly lies with the (Democrat controlled?) Congress and also Bush for signing it into law....

This kind of stuff is why it makes my blood boil to deal with anyone in the NOBAMA crowd.

If you prefer Romney or the GOP platform because those principles are better than what Obama wants to do, fine. I can respect that.

But if you think Obama is the worst president in history or has been a total disaster, you are a ####### brainwashed moron.

The last 4 years have been small adjustments (for the better, IMO) not a complete change of direction.

But they've been 4 years of small adjustments from what we've been continually beaten over the head with as The Worst President Evah.

So are we saying that Obama is as bad as Bush or that Bush wasn't so bad after all?

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...

1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

I just thank god those years are over. I don't feel that way about Romney.

But they've been 4 years of small adjustments from what we've been continually beaten over the head with as The Worst President Evah.
So are we saying that Obama is as bad as Bush or that Bush wasn't so bad after all?

We are the people, they couldn’t figure outWe are the people, our parents warned us about~Jimmy Buffett

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

------------------------------------
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...
1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.
2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

Okay. I can see #1.
But discounting that, if a smart guy does the remaining things in nearly the same way as the dumb guy, what does it matter that he's smart?

Geez, I don't even know where to start and it's lunchtime... I think the Obama administration operates in a completely different way than the Bush administration and central to that is Obama himself. The most important things about a president IMO are decision making, leadership, and how they cause the US to viewed around the world.
I'd also say I'd expect Obama to push his agenda more in a 2nd term. With what was handed to him in '08 it was a necessity to maintain the economic recovery course, and wind down the wars.

Why? Receipts are way, way down due to the Great Recession. Social spending necessarily increases during recessions (duh) so unless you actually expected him to cut spending while in the midst of a recession, blaming him for deficits that are largely due to the economic downturn seems ridiculous.

Geez, I don't even know where to start and it's lunchtime... I think the Obama administration operates in a completely different way than the Bush administration and central to that is Obama himself. The most important things about a president IMO are decision making, leadership, and how they cause the US to viewed around the world.

I'd also say I'd expect Obama to push his agenda more in a 2nd term. With what was handed to him in '08 it was a necessity to maintain the economic recovery course, and wind down the wars.

Okay, but you're still saying that Obama is doing pretty much the same that Bush did, simply with more panache.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Please rename thread to "Obama spending binge never happened, thanks to the mostly Republican but many Democrats, too, Congress". Thanks!

Why? Receipts are way, way down due to the Great Recession. Social spending necessarily increases during recessions (duh) so unless you actually expected him to cut spending while in the midst of a recession, blaming him for deficits that are largely due to the economic downturn seems ridiculous.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

It's also important to note that one of the first things the Obama administration did when entering office was to put spending on the two wars in the budget, whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...

1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

Okay. I can see #1.

But discounting that, if a smart guy does the remaining things in nearly the same way as the dumb guy, what does it matter that he's smart?

Geez, I don't even know where to start and it's lunchtime... I think the Obama administration operates in a completely different way than the Bush administration and central to that is Obama himself. The most important things about a president IMO are decision making, leadership, and how they cause the US to viewed around the world.

I'd also say I'd expect Obama to push his agenda more in a 2nd term. With what was handed to him in '08 it was a necessity to maintain the economic recovery course, and wind down the wars.

Every President inherits problems from many past presidents. Leadership is not using that as an excuse. Leadership is fixing them.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

Obama is more well-spoken than Bush but no more intelligent.

LHUCKS: I'm not internationally known, but I'm known throughout the microphone.

GPJ: There's really no way to enjoy the great outdoors unless you're electro-shocking a horse's anoos.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

It's also important to note that one of the first things the Obama administration did when entering office was to put spending on the two wars in the budget, whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

So this is not an apples to apples comparison? What would the numbers look like had Obama left them off the budget?

------------------------------------
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

It's also important to note that one of the first things the Obama administration did when entering office was to put spending on the two wars in the budget, whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

The Former White House Director for Space Policy, who has actually interacted with GWB, greatly disagrees with you in a Slate article:

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

It's also important to note that one of the first things the Obama administration did when entering office was to put spending on the two wars in the budget, whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

So are you saying that the numbers linked to in the OP don't reflect any war spending?

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

This is perfect for Obama. He can take credit for the GM/Chrysler bailout in an important union state but doesn't have to take the blame for any of the costs associated with it since it happened in FY2009.
http://www.washingto...fwnlQ_blog.html

... whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

I think this is one of the biggest BS statements that I always hear about Bush. Basically, war funding has never been included in the federal budget. So Bush follows the same budgetary practice that every president before him has. Now all of the sudden, he's attempting to hide the money??? He's just following the same procedure used by the government in the past. He wasn't trying to hide anything. Gimme a break.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

The Former White House Director for Space Policy, who has actually interacted with GWB, greatly disagrees with you in a Slate article:

The person I respect most in this life worked side by side with GWB when he was governor in TX for several years. His lone impression of the guy was his inabilty to answer a simple question without 6 people conferring with him first. He can't tell you if he was too stupid, or incompetent, or just cautious - but the fact is the guy couldn't tie his own shoes without checking with someone else.

... whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

I think this is one of the biggest BS statements that I always hear about Bush. Basically, war funding has never been included in the federal budget. So Bush follows the same budgetary practice that every president before him has. Now all of the sudden, he's attempting to hide the money??? He's just following the same procedure used by the government in the past. He wasn't trying to hide anything. Gimme a break.

I don't give a rats ### about why it wasn't on there. Ireelevant.
But if Obama's numbers include it, and Bush's numbers did not.... given the numbers cited here, this has to strongly favor Obama's performance does it not?

... whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

I think this is one of the biggest BS statements that I always hear about Bush. Basically, war funding has never been included in the federal budget. So Bush follows the same budgetary practice that every president before him has. Now all of the sudden, he's attempting to hide the money??? He's just following the same procedure used by the government in the past. He wasn't trying to hide anything. Gimme a break.

You don't think war funding should be included in the federal budget? Why not?

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)

2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)

2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)

2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)

2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)

2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)

2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)

2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)

2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)

1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)

1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)

1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

It's also important to note that one of the first things the Obama administration did when entering office was to put spending on the two wars in the budget, whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

So are you saying that the numbers linked to in the OP don't reflect any war spending?

Do the numbers here reflect apples to apples? Or are all the numbers but Obama's sans war spending?

The main reasons I consider Bush to be the worst president of my lifetime isn't because of all his policies, but more a single decision and him as a person...

1) He started a major war on false pretenses, and the fact his father didn't go all the way to Baghdad I believe was a factor in his decision. He had a personal reason to start that nearly meaningless war, thousands of US soldiers died, and it wrecked the federal budget.

2) He's of average intelligence at best. I want my president to be well spoken, sharp, and presidential. Obama is that. Bush was like the dumb guy in the frathouse, and an embarrassment to our country.

Okay. I can see #1.

But discounting that, if a smart guy does the remaining things in nearly the same way as the dumb guy, what does it matter that he's smart?

Geez, I don't even know where to start and it's lunchtime... I think the Obama administration operates in a completely different way than the Bush administration and central to that is Obama himself. The most important things about a president IMO are decision making, leadership, and how they cause the US to viewed around the world.

I'd also say I'd expect Obama to push his agenda more in a 2nd term. With what was handed to him in '08 it was a necessity to maintain the economic recovery course, and wind down the wars.

Every President inherits problems from many past presidents. Leadership is not using that as an excuse. Leadership is fixing them.

No, that would be a dictatorship.

The President can't spend a dime without Congress- your local/statewide elected representation, people you and your community have a chance to vote out of office if you don't like what they spent or will spend money on- giving the OK.

ALL of this talk about which President spent what totally misses the point IMO. Presidents may ask for some relatively small amounts of new expenditures every year, but they can't even get THAT without Congress saying it is OK. Blaming the president (or giving them credit) for deficit/debt levels would be like blaming a kid for his parents' budget problems because he asked for a new GI Joe and a box of sugar cereal.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams.I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas JeffersonReligious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.- James Madison

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." -Sarah Palin

... whereas Bush and Co. kept that spending out of the federal budget every year in order to make gov't spending appear smaller.

I think this is one of the biggest BS statements that I always hear about Bush. Basically, war funding has never been included in the federal budget. So Bush follows the same budgetary practice that every president before him has. Now all of the sudden, he's attempting to hide the money??? He's just following the same procedure used by the government in the past. He wasn't trying to hide anything. Gimme a break.

I don't give a rats ### about why it wasn't on there. Ireelevant.
But if Obama's numbers include it, and Bush's numbers did not.... given the numbers cited here, this has to strongly favor Obama's performance does it not?

I don't know how it's calculated in what is being shown, but the Iraq war was budgeted at about $100B annually. Even if you add it back into Bush's numbers here the scale isn't going to change much.
None of this really matters. We can't tread water with current policies anyway. We are debating pittances here.

Edited by jonessed, 23 May 2012 - 02:11 PM.

But to me security is primary, and has to come before all freedoms.

I don't think I have worked more than 45 hours in a week ever. And most of the time it is a 37 hour week.

I have been saying for some time there was no nuclear weapon program in Iran. How did I know this? Do I have a crystal ball? Do I get insider info from the CIA? No I actually look at what is happening and what people in the know are saying. It's really easy with this new fangled innerwebs thingy. I do the google.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.